This is a debate between Gramarye and Inferno on the topic of "Religion is an evil that needs to be addressed".

Standard debate rules apply, and there is no time limit for making new posts. As per usual, a thread will be set up for the discussion of this debate, and I remind both Gramarye and Inferno that while this debate is ongoing that will not be permitted to post in that thread.

Greetings, observers. This is the natural development of this thread, I'd recommend you read it before starting this one.

I thank both my opponent for agreeing to this debate as well as Austra for setting this up so quickly.

Now the title might seem strange to you, dear viewer, so let me quickly explain what I mean:Religion is an evil in the world with a lot of followers and if we are to have a better world, we need to address this evil. We shouldn't wait for people to understand this on their own, we should show them that this can be and indeed is a bad thing for us and we should strive to get this out of the way as soon as possible. In the first sentence of this paragraph I said "an evil", that's because I understand that there are other evils around, but religion might just be the most poisonous of them all.

I think the first part of the argument, that religion does indeed do evil that affects us all, is all too easily proven. The second part of the argument, that religion harms us in no matter what way it comes, might be slightly more difficult to address. The third part of the argument, that we should do something to address this issue, should more or less logically follow, if the first two arguments turn out to be correct.

Argument #1: Religion motivates (some, if not most) people to do evil.

I doubt we really need to go in to the evils that Islam inspired, including, but not limited to: The attacks of 9/11, in which the attackers shouted "Allah Akbar!"; or Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood; or the oppression of women; or the hanging of homosexuals; or the cruel justice system in Islamic countries; or the myriad of atrocities that happened in its history and so on and so forth.

We also don't need to go into the Church's past and present, including anti-condom propaganda, not recognizing homosexual marriage as an alternate life style and helping the Nazis flee via the ratlines.

I think we can pretty much agree on this first point, as it's not really up for debate.

So on to...Argument #2: Religion is bad, in no matter what form it comes

Upon looking out into the world, I see two kinds of religion: The "revealed truth" religions and the "spiritual" religions. Revealed basically means that they get their "knowledge" from scripture, "spiritual" mostly means that they look to some holy man/woman or other who's still alive today. Both fall prey to the same fallacy: That whatever their book/holy man says is the word of God. This fails not only because human interpretation is most certainly wrong, but also because scripture isn't the word of God and what "holy (wo)men" say is also never 100% correct.

You could now argue that not all religion necessarily relies on any of those two, that your religion can rest solely on science and whatever else is out there. To this, there are two responses:

1)

ImprobableJoe wrote:[It] matters what people believe, because people act based on their beliefs. [It] matters how they come to conclusions on things, not just a small sampling of behavior.

When people make a claim, my first question is always "How do you know that?". It's not so much that I distrust them about that particular claim at the moment, it's more that I distrust everybody else with what they say. If my friend claims something and I then learn he picked up the claim from whatever newspaper, I'm not going to trust his claim. That's why citing your sources is so important, it's this mindset that "something is true because I read it" that can be discouraged through this "new" mentality.

My problem with every single religion is this ounce of faith, and by that I mean "certainty without evidence". At some point, every religion boils down to faith. Faith in what? Faith in something not only unknown, but in all probability also unknowable. I would wager, but here I can't really rely on much, that a world where faith is not a virtue would be a world of more rational decisions, probably a world of more goodness* and a world of steadier scientific advancements. A world without faith would be a world of reason.

Richard Dawkins wrote:Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

This point ties in nicely with the above. Above, I argued that it's important where people get their ideas from, because religion at some point always invokes knowledge from somewhere whence no knowledge can be found. Here, I will argue that this kind of faith also discourages thinking and might reward undue respect to extremist or fundamentalist faith and/or thinking.

Faith is such an incredibly slippery slope. At first, you might only assume on faith that a God does exist. That in itself isn't necessarily harmful (I think it is, but that's a different matter entirely and not the topic of this debate) but who can say where it stops? The next person might believe, on faith, that homosexuality is a sin. If you've accepted that God exists based on faith, how can you condemn someone for thinking the above, also based on faith? You can't.

As the Dawkins quote above also suggests, it is a cop-out. How so? Well when pursuing a question, you already have an answer at the ready: God did it. There's no way to show you wrong and there's also no way to make you reconsider, because you accept that based on faith. This is how moderate religion can, but not necessarily must, stifle scientific progress.

Now in response to all of that, you could argue that religion need not necessarily rely on faith, that it doesn't need this "great cop-out". What then, I ask you, is the difference to no religion at all? You can not know about your God, so at some point you do need faith.

Conclusion

Now I hope that I have sufficiently argued that religion today affects all of our lives, very often in extremely negative ways. There is by the way no doubt that religion also inspired a lot of good, but I'd suggest that there are other, and better, motivators for this and that these other motivators don't have the negative touch to them.I hope that I have also sufficiently argued that even the most moderate religion has serious draw-backs and is a hindrance to human progress. Faith, the key ingredient in religion, does nothing but stifle thinking and create fertile ground for more extremist ideology.

If we are to get rid of fundamentalism, we must get rid of religion as a whole. Note that I do not advocate any extremist retaliation, instead I advocate reasonable and rational debate. If you can't show that something exists, you shouldn't believe it.

At this point, I must suggest an alternative. Well if you're a moderate religious person, not much changes. You accept that because you can't show a God to exist, such a being most probably doesn't exist and you stop relying on faith. If you're a fundamentalist person... well, a lot will have to change. If religion is truly replaced, it must be replaced by something that will not allow the same mistakes, that does not allow faith. It must be replaced... by science, or at least a scientific way of looking at the world.

I'm sure that at this point "religion and science are compatible" will come up, but I'll save that for my reply.

Religion is an evil in the world with a lot of followers and if we are to have a better world, we need to address this evil.

I think the first part of the argument, that religion does indeed do evil that affects us all, is all too easily proven

Things done in the name of religion may indeed appear to be evil; 9/11 is only one of many examples that could be quoted. The Muslim faith is very much under fire at this time because in the media, publicity is given to events in Muslim nations such as stoning and the ever-present risk of terrorism. The role of nations such as America in defining terrorist strongholds and the recent drama surrounding the alleged capture in Abbottabad of Osama bin Laden have led somewhat to polarisation between Muslim nations and others. it is important to distinguish between what is done in the name of religion and what is done in the name of politics masquerading as religion. To paraphrase the cliche, one man's terrorist is another man's guerilla fighter. To a Muslim, jihadism is not terrorism; they use the term 'al-jihad fi sabil Allah', which means striving in the way of Allah. The Xtian Crusades of 1095 - 1291 were similarly-religiously-motivated; intended to restore Xtian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem. This phrase taken from http://www.shariahprogram.ca/articles/Jihad-Habib-Jifry.shtml demonstrates no evil intent:

In reality, we are not a people whose mission is to kill the kuffar, nor are we a people who love the kuffar unrestrictedly. When it is time for fighting, we do not fight except those who, by doing so, we would be serving Allah alone (not our passions or personal agendas).

There is no doubt, as Inferno states, that religion affects us all just as politics affects us all, even if we do not espouse a particular religion or indeed any religion at all. To state that 'religion does indeed do evil that affects us all' is a step too far though, as what one group perceive as evil is perceived as good by another.

Argument #1: Religion motivates (some, if not most) people to do evil.

This should be rephrased to Argument #1: Religion motivates (some, if not most) people to do something. As I understand it, people seek religion because their lives without it, in some form, are not enough; they look for something that will fill the gaps, change them, give them access to a higher level of existence by entering the spiritual realm. This motivation to do something has sent missionaries out to perform humanitarian as well as evangelical work both abroad and in their native lands; many dying in the process due to disease, famine and war. The evangelical aspect of this work does not denigrate the humanitarian aspect of it; I recognise that modern humanitarian work is also carried out by non-believers but the missionaries got there first.

It's true, as Inferno points out, that some churches have and propagate views which exclude groups which, in the wider society, are harmonised and integrated. The issue of celebrating same-sex marriages in church is very much a hot potato for Xtians because of the content of their bible. Is this refusal by Xtian churches to accept gay marriage into their canon evil? No. Misguided, outdated, exclusionary? Perhaps, but if we expect equality and diversity in our cultures then we must offer it to others. The rights of same-sex couples cannot justly outweigh the rights of devout Xtians to their belief; both must be respected even if that respect results in impasse.

Is religion bad? Of course not. What could be bad is what people do as a result of it but that is the responsibility of those individuals, not of religion. Religion is a tool, nothing more; how it is used is what matters.

There is a pernicious tendency in modern culture to embrace victimhood and avoid taking personal responsibility. Obese people are not born but made, for example; life is a series of choices. It's a part of human nature to select and embrace what we like and ignore and avoid what we don't. This debate is an example of selection in order to prove a point and win it. Those who choose to follow a particular religion will inevitably be more attracted by some aspects of it than others, in the same way that a political manifesto is assessed before voting. Therefore, the effect that their religion of choice has upon them and subsequently upon those around them is entirely their responsibility. Two people read a bible; one sees the part that states 'God is love' and another sees the part that states 'I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation'. They have both read the same book but what they have taken away from it are two conflicting viewpoints, both of which are correct. Does this make that bible evil? No.

Conclusion

I partially accept Inferno's argument that 'even the most moderate religion has serious draw-backs' but my agreement ends there. Nor can I agree that 'to get rid of fundamentalism, we must get rid of religion as a whole' or that faith 'stifles thinking', which I have attempted to rebut above. Faith is easy to use as a skittle because there is no proof beyond the effect it has on the spiritual and temporal lives of those who have it. If reading a bible or qu'ran provides some form of peace, guidance or surcease from distress, so be it. There is no need to prove that experience to anyone else, it's personal. To be human is not only to think but to feel.

To remove religion from society would be to stifle life and progress because religion has provided to some a challenge which has resulted in great gains. Humans are naturally inclined to explore and not only in the physical realm. Those who do not believe have still benefited from the existence of religion; this is evidenced by the debates surrounding Pascal's wager, for example. To debate sharpens the intellect. However, Einstein said 'We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality'.

If religion is truly replaced, it must be replaced by something that will not allow the same mistakes, that does not allow faith. It must be replaced... by science, or at least a scientific way of looking at the world.

I've attempted above to address why science is no more immune to faith than is religion - both need adherents to survive. Nothing exists in a vacuum and it is illogical to assume that scientific advances and thinking have developed without any shaping from the religious views of the day. Voltaire said 'Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien'; in other words, pursuing the best solution may result end up doing less actual good than accepting a solution that, while not perfect, is effective. To replace one perhaps flawed entity with another just as flawed is pointless.

It seems that we need to work on some definitions first, to make sense of the topic at hand.

First, let's look at "evil". No matter what sort of a moral code you have, "evil" is typically defined as a violation of the moral code. Here is the Oxford Dictionary's definition:

Evil wrote:Pronunciation: /Ã‹Ë†iÃ‹Âv(Ã‰â„¢)l, -vÃ‰Âªl/adjective1profoundly immoral and wicked:his evil deedsno man is so evil as to be beyond redemption(of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil:we were driven out of the house by an evil spiritharmful or tending to harm:the evil effects of high taxes2(of a smell or sight) extremely unpleasant:a bathroom with an ineradicably evil smell

I've highlighted in bold the relevant bits.

One of the prime examples of a truly evil person is usually Adolf Hitler. No matter who anyone of us would talk to, I think we can all agree that Hitler was a truly evil person. And yet, his motives were, in his eyes, good. He wanted to create a better place. Granted, it would only be for Aryans, but it was supposed to be a better place. What I'm getting at here is the intent behind an action. I very much doubt Hitler saw himself as an evil person, he saw himself more of a liberator and half-god. His intent, as you can see, is more or less irrelevant, it is the outcome that matters.

I'll grant you that "evil intent" is a good starting position to do evil, but it's by far not the only one. Remember Steven Weinberg:"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Notice that I'm not claiming that religion is the only bad motivator for good people that can exist, by far not. However, and I hope I have demonstrated that sufficiently now, there is, as Richard Dawkins says, a logical path from religious beliefs to evil deeds.

Gramarye wrote:It's true, as Inferno points out, that some churches have and propagate views which exclude groups which, in the wider society, are harmonised and integrated. The issue of celebrating same-sex marriages in church is very much a hot potato for Xtians because of the content of their bible. Is this refusal by Xtian churches to accept gay marriage into their canon evil? No. Misguided, outdated, exclusionary? Perhaps, but if we expect equality and diversity in our cultures then we must offer it to others. The rights of same-sex couples cannot justly outweigh the rights of devout Xtians to their belief; both must be respected even if that respect results in impasse.

Let's deal with this paragraph before the other one.

Moral evil is any immoral or evil act for which a person can be held responsible. (Contrary to natural evil, basically all the earthquakes and tornadoes and the like.) Evil, as per above, is anything that violates the moral values. But which values? Well generally, the society's at large, at that time. That's why we say that 18th century Victorian England was full of bigots, racists and misogynist, but only if compared to us. If we compare them to basically anyone from the Bible or some Rednecks of the same time, they'd seem like saints.We can't judge us against them (or them against us), but we can judge if someone from our time is morally better or worse than us. That's why "outdated moral views" are very often equatable to "evil".

Think of any bad act and I can almost guarantee you that it was once accepted. Think here of calling a coloured person a "nigger". That was once an accepted term, it's now outdated = bad/evil.

Gramarye wrote:This should be rephrased to Argument #1: Religion motivates (some, if not most) people to do something.

Well of course they're doing something and there's absolutely no case to be made that "all religious people are evil". There were great religious people, scientists, artists and humanitarians, there's absolutely no doubt about that.

The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Is what they did because of or despite of religion?

I will leave that question for the next round, because I think we must first agree one some of the above mentioned things.

Blaise Pascal, Section XIV Appendix: Polemical Fragments (857-924) wrote:Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions

Gramarye wrote:Is religion 'the great cop-out' as Dawkins claims? No. People of faith spend significant intellectual effort considering and analysing their faith; I give as example the Talmud, (in Hebrew Ã—ÂªÃ–Â·Ã–Â¼Ã—Å“Ã–Â°Ã—Å¾Ã—â€¢Ã–Â¼Ã—â€œ 'learning'); the many volumes of which are rabbinical guidance on Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history. Dawkins states that 'Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence'. For years people believed in relativity as a theory. In 2011 it was finally proved at Stanford (http://www.newsy.com/videos/proving-ein ... -worth-it/) and then disproved (http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/204110/sci ... wrong.html).

While your analogy is wrong, I think I understand what you're trying to say. For the record, relativity hasn't been proved wrong. Furthermore, we know that relativity works!

Now I take it you're saying that people "believed relativity on faith". Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying? If it's not, skip this paragraph and explain what you mean in greater detail. If it is, read on.

No, they didn't believe it "on faith". There were (and still are) calculations, experiments and so forth to substantiate that relativity (or basically any other scientific theory) was, at least to a degree, valid. It's not so much that the science was false, it was merely incomplete. There is a relativity of "wrong".

Once again though, I have to ask: What do people use to guide their moral thinking? Answer: Modern secular reasoning.Or to put it in another way: Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

Richard Dawkins wrote:A formative influence on my undergraduate self was the response of a respected elder statesmen of the Oxford Zoology Department when an American visitor had just publicly disproved his favourite theory. The old man strode to the front of the lecture hall, shook the American warmly by the hand and declared in ringing, emotional tones: "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." And we clapped our hands red. Can you imagine a Government Minister being cheered in the House of Commons for a similar admission? "Resign, Resign" is a much more likely response!

Gramarye wrote:There is a pernicious tendency in modern culture to embrace victimhood and avoid taking personal responsibility. Obese people are not born but made, for example; life is a series of choices. It's a part of human nature to select and embrace what we like and ignore and avoid what we don't. This debate is an example of selection in order to prove a point and win it. Those who choose to follow a particular religion will inevitably be more attracted by some aspects of it than others, in the same way that a political manifesto is assessed before voting. Therefore, the effect that their religion of choice has upon them and subsequently upon those around them is entirely their responsibility. Two people read a bible; one sees the part that states 'God is love' and another sees the part that states 'I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation'. They have both read the same book but what they have taken away from it are two conflicting viewpoints, both of which are correct.

Religion provides a safe-haven for bigots, racists, child-molesters, etc. If it weren't for religion, they'd be immediately condemned and ostracised. Which non-religious person can say "Homosexuality is an abomination" and not immediately be stamped a bigot by everybody else? If a religious person says the same thing however, far fewer people would do that. The rest would back off and say "Oh, it's your religion. In that case, carry on."

Gramarye wrote:Does this make that bible evil? No.

It doesn't? Only when you seriously cherry-pick it. Come now, at least on this we must surely agree.

Isaac Asimov wrote:Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

Gramarye wrote:I partially accept Inferno's argument that 'even the most moderate religion has serious draw-backs' but my agreement ends there. Nor can I agree that 'to get rid of fundamentalism, we must get rid of religion as a whole' or that faith 'stifles thinking', which I have attempted to rebut above. Faith is easy to use as a skittle because there is no proof beyond the effect it has on the spiritual and temporal lives of those who have it. If reading a bible or qu'ran provides some form of peace, guidance or surcease from distress, so be it. There is no need to prove that experience to anyone else, it's personal. To be human is not only to think but to feel.

You agree that even moderate religion is far from perfect, I'd argue downright bad, yet you don't want to change it? I think the following analogy is fitting: You have a pill that will kill about 50% of all people who use it, yet heal the other 50% from disease, but they still carry the transmitting disease. Would you a) leave everything as it is and risk getting a lot of people killed or b) find a new medicine, that does a better job?

I'd go for the latter.

Gramarye wrote:To remove religion from society would be to stifle life and progress because religion has provided to some a challenge which has resulted in great gains. Humans are naturally inclined to explore and not only in the physical realm. Those who do not believe have still benefited from the existence of religion; this is evidenced by the debates surrounding Pascal's wager, for example. To debate sharpens the intellect. However, Einstein said 'We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality'.

Two things:1) Wouldn't time be best spent thinking about things that can be shown to be real? Imagine if those people, instead of thinking about how to prove God, had spent time thinking about how to reform the education system, alleviate suffering or invent new medicine.2) Nobody's saying that you shouldn't also rely on your emotions or be spiritual. I'm not arguing that we should get rid of feeling, I'm only saying we should get rid of religion.

Gramarye wrote:I've attempted above to address why science is no more immune to faith than is religion - both need adherents to survive. Nothing exists in a vacuum and it is illogical to assume that scientific advances and thinking have developed without any shaping from the religious views of the day. Voltaire said 'Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien'; in other words, pursuing the best solution may result end up doing less actual good than accepting a solution that, while not perfect, is effective. To replace one perhaps flawed entity with another just as flawed is pointless.

Inferno has requested the thread be locked and the debate closed as Gramayre has not replied in well over a week. I'm inclined to give a little leeway as there is no time limit, so if the debate does not continue within 7 days te thread will be closed.